Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Time Vs Distance?

travelerscodetravelerscode Posts: 24Member Member Posts: 24Member Member
Who trains running time and who dies distance? For me, because I do so much of my training by heart rate rather than pace, time us the determining factor. For instance, today I'm supposed to run for 2 hours IN zone 2. But I also do distance. Thursday I'm doing 4M at my LT pace. Who prefers what method and why?
«13

Replies

  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 20,809Member Member Posts: 20,809Member Member
    When I'm getting ready for a specific race, I will train by distance. Between races, I just run for a certain amount of time. I like mixing the two, it keeps things interesting.
  • TavistockToadTavistockToad Posts: 35,819Member Member Posts: 35,819Member Member
    Distance.

    Currently training for a half. I mainly do lots of easy miles, with a bit of lifting and cross training as well, and the odd speed work session.
  • JetJaguarJetJaguar Posts: 688Member Member Posts: 688Member Member
    I mostly prefer time. Partially because your body doesn't really care how far you go, but it does know how long it spent exercising. One person's 5 mi run can be a lot different than another's, and time is a way to make your exercise independent of pace. But it's also partially because I'm old and I started running before wearable GPS was available, and knowing distance meant measuring your route with your car's odometer, measuring it off of a map, or doing endless laps around a track. Using a cheap sports watch was easier and you weren't locked in to a specific route. I just got used to training plans based on time. Old habit, I guess.

    If you are training for a specific event, then training by distance becomes more important. I'll do more running for distance in that case.
  • cwolfman13cwolfman13 Posts: 36,548Member Member Posts: 36,548Member Member
    Not a runner, but I cycle. If I'm training for an event, I train by distance. In regards to general fitness riding, it's mostly by time because I'm not concerned with having to be able to ride X number of miles.
  • z4osloz4oslo Posts: 227Member Member Posts: 227Member Member
    I train in a percent of lactic threshold or up to lactic threshold on my interval days. all sessions is time based.
    So in Garmin world it will look like this: (melkesyreterskel means lactic threshold in norwegian)

    6h6mdauewfgi.jpg

  • MelanieCN77MelanieCN77 Posts: 3,606Member Member Posts: 3,606Member Member
    Distance.
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 16,876Member Member Posts: 16,876Member Member
    As Janejellyroll - by time normally, include some longer distance when getting closer to an event.

    I only have so much time to squeeze a run in so that's why it's by time for me. Have to do some estimating on distance and route to get it close, usually a tad under since I don't like to rush and miss stretching/cooldown afterwards.

    Intervals - track or hill sprints - is by time too, never got into the distance based ones. I'll just figure that out later by the Garmin info.
  • DX2JX2DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921Member Member Posts: 1,921Member Member
    Who trains running time and who dies distance? For me, because I do so much of my training by heart rate rather than pace, time us the determining factor. For instance, today I'm supposed to run for 2 hours IN zone 2. But I also do distance. Thursday I'm doing 4M at my LT pace. Who prefers what method and why?

    What workout has you slogging for 2 hours? Marathon training? If training for a specific distance, it's best to train by distance.
  • OldAssDudeOldAssDude Posts: 1,430Member Member Posts: 1,430Member Member
    I use distance mostly, but If I am doing run/walk intervals where I am only running for 30 or 60 seconds, I use time. But even when I do that, I still do the intervals over a certain distance total.
  • RunnerGrl1982RunnerGrl1982 Posts: 412Member Member Posts: 412Member Member
    I also train by distance.
  • z4osloz4oslo Posts: 227Member Member Posts: 227Member Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Who trains running time and who dies distance? For me, because I do so much of my training by heart rate rather than pace, time us the determining factor. For instance, today I'm supposed to run for 2 hours IN zone 2. But I also do distance. Thursday I'm doing 4M at my LT pace. Who prefers what method and why?

    What workout has you slogging for 2 hours? Marathon training? If training for a specific distance, it's best to train by distance.

    The long SLOW run is the single most important workout for a runner, and will benefit you the most. All my long runs is between 1, 45 hours up to 2,30 hours, and my next race is "only" 10K
  • DX2JX2DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921Member Member Posts: 1,921Member Member
    z4oslo wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Who trains running time and who dies distance? For me, because I do so much of my training by heart rate rather than pace, time us the determining factor. For instance, today I'm supposed to run for 2 hours IN zone 2. But I also do distance. Thursday I'm doing 4M at my LT pace. Who prefers what method and why?

    What workout has you slogging for 2 hours? Marathon training? If training for a specific distance, it's best to train by distance.

    The long SLOW run is the single most important workout for a runner, and will benefit you the most. All my long runs is between 1, 45 hours up to 2,30 hours, and my next race is "only" 10K

    I understand the concept of long slow distance. No professionally designed training plan would have you run 2+ hours to train for a 10k.

    If that training regime isn't a holdover from training for a much longer distance, you're either overtraining for that 10k or are training really inefficiently. It's not a big deal as long as you enjoy it and aren't incurring any stress injuries but note that it is possible to train at too slow a pace to really improve your conditioning.

  • z4osloz4oslo Posts: 227Member Member Posts: 227Member Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    z4oslo wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Who trains running time and who dies distance? For me, because I do so much of my training by heart rate rather than pace, time us the determining factor. For instance, today I'm supposed to run for 2 hours IN zone 2. But I also do distance. Thursday I'm doing 4M at my LT pace. Who prefers what method and why?

    What workout has you slogging for 2 hours? Marathon training? If training for a specific distance, it's best to train by distance.

    The long SLOW run is the single most important workout for a runner, and will benefit you the most. All my long runs is between 1, 45 hours up to 2,30 hours, and my next race is "only" 10K

    I understand the concept of long slow distance. No professionally designed training plan would have you run 2+ hours to train for a 10k.

    If that training regime isn't a holdover from training for a much longer distance, you're either overtraining for that 10k or are training really inefficiently. It's not a big deal as long as you enjoy it and aren't incurring any stress injuries but note that it is possible to train at too slow a pace to really improve your conditioning.

    Yeah? My PT happens to be someone that set 6 world records on track (5K, 10K), have several gold medals, won NY marathon, Boston marathon, Chicago marathon and London Marathon to name a few.

    Her personal best on that distance was 2h, 21min
    When she made my current program, she failed to mention the program was really inefficient though.



  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 8,945Member Member Posts: 8,945Member Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Not a runner, but I cycle. If I'm training for an event, I train by distance. In regards to general fitness riding, it's mostly by time because I'm not concerned with having to be able to ride X number of miles.

    Same. But then distance doesn't mean very much on a bike. A mile into a headwind is a different beast than a mile with a tail wind, and the difference between two tires is like flat vs uphill.
  • travelerscodetravelerscode Posts: 24Member Member Posts: 24Member Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Who trains running time and who dies distance? For me, because I do so much of my training by heart rate rather than pace, time us the determining factor. For instance, today I'm supposed to run for 2 hours IN zone 2. But I also do distance. Thursday I'm doing 4M at my LT pace. Who prefers what method and why?

    What workout has you slogging for 2 hours? Marathon training? If training for a specific distance, it's best to train by distance.

    Dude my goal is to build up for an ultra. So yeah I'm gonna be going for a looooong time. I'll be logging some 6-8 hour runs later this year if I keep good on injuries.
  • DX2JX2DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921Member Member Posts: 1,921Member Member
    z4oslo wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    z4oslo wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Who trains running time and who dies distance? For me, because I do so much of my training by heart rate rather than pace, time us the determining factor. For instance, today I'm supposed to run for 2 hours IN zone 2. But I also do distance. Thursday I'm doing 4M at my LT pace. Who prefers what method and why?

    What workout has you slogging for 2 hours? Marathon training? If training for a specific distance, it's best to train by distance.

    The long SLOW run is the single most important workout for a runner, and will benefit you the most. All my long runs is between 1, 45 hours up to 2,30 hours, and my next race is "only" 10K

    I understand the concept of long slow distance. No professionally designed training plan would have you run 2+ hours to train for a 10k.

    If that training regime isn't a holdover from training for a much longer distance, you're either overtraining for that 10k or are training really inefficiently. It's not a big deal as long as you enjoy it and aren't incurring any stress injuries but note that it is possible to train at too slow a pace to really improve your conditioning.

    Yeah? My PT happens to be someone that set 6 world records on track (5K, 10K), have several gold medals, won NY marathon, Boston marathon, Chicago marathon and London Marathon to name a few.

    Her personal best on that distance was 2h, 21min
    When she made my current program, she failed to mention the program was really inefficient though.



    If your goal is to specifically run a 10k and not to ultimately progress to longer distances or to run a world class time at 10k, you do not need regular 2+ hour long runs. If, on the other hand, you are training to build up to a half, full, or longer or will be seriously competing at the 10k distance then 2+ hour long runs as a regular thing is totally normal.

    Sounds like your PT is Paula Radcliffe based on a quick Google search. As a recreational runner, it is absolutely not necessary to train like Paula Radcliffe. If you do have aspirations of running professionally/competitively, then you are an outlier on this board and should already understand that your training regime will be enormously different than what most of us would ever need to go through.

    So I will clarify but stand by my original statement...if your goal is just to run a recreational 10k, it is not necessary to have regular 2+ hour long runs in your schedule. It is either massive overkill or terribly inefficient.
  • travelerscodetravelerscode Posts: 24Member Member Posts: 24Member Member
    Let the flame war begin
  • k8eekinsk8eekins Posts: 1,968Member Member Posts: 1,968Member Member
    Who trains running time and who tries distance? For me, because I do so much of my training by heart rate rather than pace, time is the determining factor. For instance, today I'm supposed to run for 2 hours IN zone 2. But I also do distance. Thursday I'm doing 4M at my LT pace. Who prefers what method and why?

    I prefer duration along trails and off-road trails with variating inclines in Zone 8/9. I only trail-run for an hour, sometimes for an hour and half (warm-up/warm-down), before I'll work on power-building, sprint and ball handling drills.

  • Machka9Machka9 Posts: 14,246Member Member Posts: 14,246Member Member
  • collectingbluescollectingblues Posts: 2,398Member Member Posts: 2,398Member Member
    I prefer distance. I used to do time, except for my weekend long runs, and then discovered that I found it more personally satisfying to hit a specific distance -- especially if I'm training for a specific course/race -- and to be doing that distance over a shorter timeframe, than it was to be all "Oh, I'll run for 45 minutes, oK, cool."
Sign In or Register to comment.